I am dumb struck!!!
I just realised it.!
.
It is mostly the conservatives who want to get out.
AND I think that David might hope that most of these people will be gone to 'Asgar' when the referendum comes around.

The UK should do whatever is necessary for what will provide what the citizens of that country want. It is not hard to see as an outsider looking in, the EU has simply become a load of politicians living off the backs of European people as they collect more and more power to themselves in Brussels, totally at the expense of self governance and freedom in each country. Speaking from inside America, the mistake made here is each state for the last 100 years has given away its authority and the freedom of the people to the US Federal Government. The impact here is bad, creating what is in effect the over powered government Patrick Henry feared when he debated against the Constitution. Europe though is not a union of states, it is nations and the effect of following america down the path of that mistake will be significantly worse because the people of europe and its nations have a heck of a lot more to lose. American states are similar enough to reduce the effect.

Basically the UK can and should pull out. Signing up for the EU did not mean sacrificing everything in the name of that choice. If the EU has chozen tyranny over freedom, the UK and any member nation has the obligation to their own people, to rethink their involvement in an EU tyranny, especially when those same people were sold on EU unity and easy of economic freedom. Basically the EU is in breech of contract with the European citizens and as a result, time to shut it down. Or fire all the politicians and try again.

Take Massachusetts, California and Texas. Which is not like the other? You underestimate the differences here because, though state governments and even flags look very similar, the underlying cultures are as different as European nations in many respects. Books have been written about this, and I recommend to the attention of the readers: "American Nations" by Colin Woodard.
He offers a thorough and well documented assessment of how our ten "nations" do not correspond to official states.

The New England states, with bits of Canada and other states have a distinct Yankee nation and culture, which has been locked in feuding with Apalachia for centuries, the present gun controversy being only the latest engagement.

This is on topic because Europe could benefit from taking a look at our ongoing, and much older, failing experiment in unifying incompatible "nations." Indeed, Europe might have fewer problems now if arrogance and anti-Americanism had not caused them to ignore our history of successes and failures in unification.

Read the book before you argue. The Yankees were democratic [for the time] their church was hostile to the CofE, they did not like slavery.
The South had plantations with the rulers like feudal lords, were with the CofE, and disliked the dangerous democracy of the Yankees.

Whether one agrees or not, this theory explains a lot, including the present fight over guns. Yankees believe we are the government, the government is us, and the government should take care of the people. If guns cause problems they should be eliminated.

Appalachians distrust government, think everyone should own a gun, and distrust the Yankees even more than the Yankees dislike them. So:
1. not one social order, and the Puritans would deny same heritage.
2. different religions and the cultural implications of that.
3. North, Middle and South had, like Europe, different ideas about the role of government, money and the use thereof, etc.
4. The legal systems were derived from England, but the southern one was feudal and the New England one was more democratic.

Well there are differences and than there are differences.
The trick is to know when differences are so incompatible that they can never form a federal union. Such as Slovakia and Czechs a most civilised divorced between people who recognised their differences couldn't bridge the gap.
Now if McJakome's theories are true about the regional differences in the USA than it would have broken up more than 200 years ago. Views on gun ownership don't make or break nations but it is views on the constitution and the insitutions that hold a nation together that matter, freedom of the press, separation of power, the checks and balance system.
In the important stuff, there are no regional differences - The constitution is accepted or indeed some would say worshipped in all corners of the USA, the current legal system derived from British common law is accepted by all regions, the English language is accepted as the language of public institutions such as schools, government etc.
And this is why the billions New York transfers annually to Mississippi & other poorer states is not a hot button issue in New York. This is why Both New Yorkers and Georgians see themselves as Americans first with a shared history as a country from the revolutionary war of 1776 to WW1 to WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

However when the USA was created in 1776, it was only the 13 colonies which were overwhelmingly
1) one heritage - British over 70%
2) on language - English
3) one culture - Anglo
4) one legal system - British common law.
.......
Dear Emma.

You do have a problem with plurality. Think that is one good reason for the UK to get out.

When I went to the Tenement museum in NY 4 weeks - They actually thought that plurality is a big positive.
In Fact they thought that America is up there, because of Plurality.
.
Could they be wrong ????
.
They actually showed me some facts and figures to prove it.

Both you and EF are reading too much into my post. I have summarized a theory in a book that appears at present [I haven't finished the book, but I have graduate and undergraduate degrees in the subject] to explain the problems the US has faced and currently faces.
.
Emma Finney has never heard of attempts to secede from the US by the Transappalachian frontier states [See State of Franklin], the New England states [see Hartford Convention], the Civil War, and the present secession fever among right-wing lunatics. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose," as they say in French.
.
Where EF goes wrong is seeing the failure of those wanting to break up, rather than seeing the persistent rise in secessionist feelings. This should be compared to a loveless marriage of convenience, with frequent quarrels. Weighing the relative merits of divorce and continued suffering, which factors will determine the ultimate decision?
.
As to my recommendation, it is to try to preserve the union by compromise as long as possible. If one group becomes intransigent to the point of sabotaging the union and making compromise impossible [i.e. religious extremists, racists and die-hard irredentist Confederates], then they are the ones [as in the previous civil war started by their ancestors] who can be said to want to break up the union.
.
Under the circumstances, getting rid of the dross would be a benefit to the remaining states. The rich, blue, scientifically advanced states will be free to move into the 21st Century, while the red states lurch back into the 18th.

This debate really is very simple. Does the UK wish to be a self governing country or a member of what will become a federal European superstate? That is the biggest question faced by the British people since the Act of Union. Our democracy (defined as the ability to throw out the people who make our laws and directly elect alternatives) has served us well for centuries and isn't something to be lightly discarded, despite our continental cousins apparent bafflement that we may prefer that over their dreams of an EU super state. We have good reason to be suspicious of grand European dreams and in my humble opinion the EU is simply the latest incarnation of an idea that has been tried in different forms repeatedly for the last two millennia. I'd happily trade a few percentage points of GDP to ensure we are not associated with the failure of this latest attempt, which will come as surely as night follows day. Why? There is no European demos and the whole project is ill conceived by the elites as tool for managing rather than serving the people. It will not end well.

Quite agree, and that was De Gaulle's concept of " a Europe of "patries", ie a loose federation of sovereign nations, a concept the French people re-affirmed twice; when they barely said "yes" to Maastricht and then "no" to to the next shenanigan. In addition the "idea of Europe" is a very recent one, it dates back from the 18th century and was restricted to a few cosmopolitan intellectuals. The 19th century was in fact dominated by the Vienna idea of a balance of powers. To find a "grand dream" you have to go the same people who pushed for the League of Nations. We know with what oucome. In sum: it is a very recent idea, and opposed by statesmen, like De Gaulle, who put their country first and saw in the Coal and Steel arrangement and what followed a matter of convenience. The narrative Eurocrats are selling and selling well, is indeed that there always has been this "dream". Not so. Recent and rejected, again and again by the Peoples. So: full marks to Dave for reminding the world of what De Gaulle called "realities".

Thank you for the link. "Les Influences" is not really influential, being little known, but its roster of contributors is impressive. I would call it "fashionable progressive" rather than left leaning.

I am sure you realized that Mr Salazar's piece on the PM's speech looks very cursorily at its content, and with much approval on its form, Mr Salazar being an expert in the art of rhetoric. Well worth a read, but not likely to shift readers' perceptions.

Hard indeed for the French to stomach that two hallowed Gaullist concepts - the recourse to referenda to settle major issues in regard of sovereignty; and the idea of Europe as a loose federation of nations bound together by self-interest - are now being defended by the British! They spend so much time arguing over gay marriage that they forget the rest.
Look at:ttp://blog.francetvinfo.fr/scenes-politiques/2013/01/23/les-anti-europeens-francais-louent-cameron.html

Tell us something we don't know. French Europhobes always have been Britain's allies even when not realizing it. The day after they won the 2005 referendum, Charlemagne ran an op/ed piece which was almost hysterical in triumph, and explained in scary detail how this was a huge success for Whitehall and its centuries-old European strategy.

As for referendums, there is a reason why De Gaulle used them, and why Germany banned them. The current French constitution gives them equivalent weight, not superior, to decisions taken through national representation. Rhetoric claiming them to be the highest and most legitimate expression of "the people's will" is deeply flawed and seeped in ulterior motives.

oh dear...I was merely commenting on the far-fetched idea that Continental Europeans have always harboured some sort of Grand European Dream of Peaceful Union und so weiter (barring conquest, of course), which is not the case, and plays right into the hands of Eurocrats.

I gather conspiracy theories are much easier to draw comfort from than facing the many flaws and democracy deficit in the EU which has made it unpalatable to most British citizens.
Just to give one example - The Lisbon constitution gave the EU an unelected President who gets paid more than Obama. An unelected president enjoying the high life at EU taxpayers expense while millions of EU citizens are impoverished by austerity imposed by the EU.
This is what one would expect from a third world organization.
Either reform or face the disgust of not only millions of Britons but people in many countries in Europe at the way the EU is currently run.
Another example - keep on voting in referendums till we get the results we want.
You can dismiss them as minor issues as all fanatics who think the end justifies the means are wont to do but it won't make the discomfort with EU as it is currently run go away.
Invariably fanatics lose their moral compass along the way at some point. You passed that point a long time ago.

Of course, it's always better to be fooled by 440K+ UK civil servants than around 33K EU civil servants (4% of which happen to be Brits, by the way)... the important thing is that if we got to get screwed, better be by our own kind...

Projecting your malevolent nature onto others?
Need we remind oneself that it is you who is willing to impoverish millions of Europeans with austerity in order to save the euro because a currency union was the first step in creating your megalomanic superstate.
And isn't you who has no moral objections to getting money from India & Brazil with its millions of poor for never ending IMF eurozone bailouts in order to save the euro.

well
The same poll (I originally read it in the danish newspapers) says:

51,9% of the danes says that Denmark should not follow Britain out of EU in case Britain leaves EU after an referendum

47,2% says that they would like a renegotiation for the requirement for membership
41,6% says no to renegotiation

49,7% says there should not be a referendum in case there is a renegotiation

Additionally:
I support the existence of the Euro but personally would i most likely vote no to get since it seems to me, that the current situation works well:

1) We have a peg to the Euro there has been tightly defended
2) The lack of Euromembership has forced politicians to behave more responsible than German politicians
3) Danish government bonds are selling at interest rates there are much lower than interest rates on German government bonds
4) Danish housing mortgage bonds are selling at interest rates there are lower than the government bonds of many eurocountries
5) We do not have to come with money for bailout packages for other countries
6) We have obtained the Target 2 euro transaction system
7) Old deals (as far as i know) are giving Denmark some guarantees as a special reward

Obtaining voting right for ECB interest rates does not seem important if it means having to accept point 5

Well, regarding the renegotiation. Lots of people have different wishes for renegotiation, but a massive parliamentary majority is trying to get a rebate due to Denmark having the unions highest net contribution per inhabitant (approximately double the british contribution per inhabitant and more than the German and Swedish contribution)

Regarding renegotiation:
Denmark is used to coalition politics, that is, Denmark is used to build alliances were you have to compromise in order to secure the concessions you consider critical
Additionally: The centerparty deciding everything in danish politics is also the most pro european party in danish politics.

It is quite interesting and reassuring to hear this from one of the smaller EU countries. The vicinity to mighty Germany seems not to obfuscate your view ... rather the opposite. I believe that influence comes via partaking . . . not through non-cooperation.

Quote:
Stephen Boyle, head of group economics at the Royal Bank of Scotland, said the last time the economy was so bad was immediately after World War One and World War Two, when GDP fell in double digits.

"Those aside, 2008-12 fall was bigger than any since before Victoria ascended the throne," he said.

"It's the worst economic performance since at least 1830, outside of post-war demobilisations," he told The Daily Telegraph. "It's worse than the 1920s, it's worse than the Great Depression."

simpletons like me need to see both sides very clearly, and in summary

PRO - Europe

>Big well developed market, with a reasonable amount of money NOW.
>Like minded people - on the whole - both politically and economically.
> Libertarian
> free movement of people and ideas.
> Still in experimental stages - so it can be modelled by influence and pressure
> On the whole - it continues to have a large sway over world affairs. This can be a source of a feeling of achievement and pride. But also it gives one better control over one's own affairs. (If France did not go to Mali, then Mali would come to France).

CON EUROPE

>somewhat non democratic, and therefore autocracy by Bureaucracy.
>Badly managed experiment.
How stupid is it to have a common bank and currency without
total financial control ?? Only Beauracrats can be so stupid
> Each country has a much more smaller say in Europe's affairs.
And therefore the country that dictates most things has to have a
stronger economy as well.
> Why should Greece pay for the French going to Mali??? The Greeks do pay a little bit in an indirect way. ( I am not saying that going to Mali is wrong - Just that the other parts of Europe have had no say in it)
> If you have economic union - which looks like it is coming- then you have to have political union.
That is impossible for Britain.

Austerity in Britain and Austerity in Europe. This and the fast ageing population of Europe with a fear of foreigners, may mean that Europe is not much of a market any more.

I refer to the report by Mckinsey which has emphasised the fact that there is a shortage of MANUFACTURING skilled jobs in the developed world.
I also saw the news, today, that Austerity is NOT working in Britain.
.
I also assume that Economics is Life.

You ask why the Greeks (and, by implication, other Europeans) should contribute financially to the French military action in Mali.
Let me suggest an answer: self-interest.

I see things this way. France is leading an action designed to reduce the power of jihadist-type groups. That power is too large at present, as shown, for example, by the terrorist action at the Algerian gas plant. If that power were reduced, threats to democracy would be reduced. Those threats should worry everybody who values freedom and democracy, not just the French government. In other words, ask not for whom the bell tolls ...

France is currently leading the action, because it was in a better position militarily than the African neighbours of Mali. It is to be hoped that the French share of the action will decline progressively, as and when other countries' troops become available.

General government deficit (or net borrowing) in 2011/12 was £117.5 billion, equivalent to 7.7 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) - down from 9.6 per cent of GDP in 2010/11 and 11.5 per cent in 2009
General government gross consolidated debt at nominal value was £1312.1 billion at the end of March 2012, equivalent to 85.8 per cent of GDP/10.:http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-258630

At the end of the third quarter of 2012, the government debt to GDP ratio in the eurozone stood at 90%:http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-24102012-AP/EN/2-24102012-AP-EN.PDF

The UK is on par with the EU 27 average, while the eurozone is higher. So go ahead and create your USE, the UK is in a far better financial position than the single failure call the 'eurozone' already.

Anyway, if you want to see a picture of the necessary structural adjustments in britain and compare with germany, italy and france go to page 9 figure 4 in this Q2 2012 report from the danish national bank

blue gives discreationary activities in 2010 and 2011
orange gives expected activities in 2012 and 2013
Purple gives the extra activity there is needed (after blue and orange contribution) in order to obtain structural balance

Basically

Germany (Tyskland) looks fine
Italy (Italien) looks fine when they have implemented orange
France (Frankring) well, not even halfway when blue and orange has been implemented
Japan very bad, purple extreme compared to France
USA well worse than Japan in total structural rebalance need but purple area not as bad as japans even though it is a lot worse than the french one
Britain (storbrittanien) well worse than USA in total structural rebalance need even though purple is not as bad as japans. The purple area is a lot worse than the French one and it is actually worse than the greek one (Grækenland) since a lot of the greek structural rebalance need was in the blue category

Why bother proving how great UK economy is when UK doesn't even meet the Maastricht criteria for joining the Euro.
.
Cameron claims UK will never join - probably he was referring to the five criteria rather than the will of the British :)
For what it's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_euro

I very much doubt, that britain have the necessary political willpower for economic reforms and responsible fiscal policies

The Euro is basically a recreation of the gold standard but with the removal of the option for external devaluation

1) Britain was the first major country in the 30-ties to leave the gold standard
2) Britain's standard reaction to loss of competitiveness has since then been "external devaluation"
3) Britain seems to prefer money printing / QE to fund a deficit instead of in time implementing necessary economy reforms, internal devaluations and implement financial regulations to prevent the occurrence of an extreme deficit and loss of competitiveness
4) After it is clear that reforms are needed due to the size of the deficit do it seem that Britain have huge problems implementing necessary structural reforms compared to Eurozone countries.

I do not think, that Britain is suited for the Euro
The euro is only a suitable currency for countries there have the political willpower and political maturity to use sound fiscal policies and implement structural reforms with positive long terms effects while the economy is strong and the need for structural reforms is not clear for voters
(Hint: less damage to growth if you implement structural reforms while the economy is strong instead of waiting until the economy is weak)

Countries in the euro have to constantly focus on
1) keeping their competitiveness against Germany (since it is a large very competitive country)
2) Sound fiscal policies were you solve problems while they are small instead of waiting until they are big
(Example: solving the retirement-funding challenge while babyboomers are still on the labour market instead of waiting until they are retired)
(Example: economies having lots of oil revenues making sure to invest the money in something generating future revenues instead of spending it on wellfare or wars or consumer products (via lower taxation on the population) in order to make sure that there will not be a drop in public revenues when the oil runs out)

Gustav you really are turning into a comedian.
You write the Euro is only right for countries that use sound fiscal policies.
Why is the Eurozone in such a mess?
Because the majority of the countries in the past had fiscal policies that were profligate to say the least.

A number of countries failed to understand the nature of the currency union they joined. They thought it was a free ride to permanently low interest rates while they could keep borrowing lots of money for entitlements and other types of wellfare spending plus salaries for public employees.

The UK always was, and always will be, a "country member" of Europe. We have an island mentality and a leaning towards the "Anglosphere".

Yes, Britain has its problems. Not least of these are (a) feckless consumerism that has landed vast numbers of people in unthinkable debt and haemorraghed money, (b) a ridiculous over-reliance on financial services, and (c) public bodies who have consistently pissed money up walls - and continue to do so - largely led by left-of-centre councils.

However, if the UK cedes more powers to the EU it will only make matters worse - the two systems are incompatible. The present government is, at least, buggering about with the issue of debt, unlike the previous administration who continued to run up IOU's despite an economy that was running at full tilt. And that is what the EU continues to do.

Well
We could for instance look at the 2011 data for ireland in the referenced eurostat table

Financial assets at 39,2% of GDP
Financial liabilities at 105,9% of GDP

That is Liabilities minus assets at 66,7% of GDP
That is less net public debt compared to Britain and Ireland ended up needing a bailout package
Thank god, that Britain is not a Euromember. I very much doubt that the rest of the Eurozone is in the mood for making a bailout package for Britain

We could also look at some of those EU countries having much better finances than Britain
France for instance:
Financial assets at 37% of GDP
Liabilities at 99,9% of GDP
Liabilities minus assets at 62,9% of GDP that is significant less debt than Britain with their 71,9% of GDP (liabilities minus assets)

A primary difference is of course budget deficit. France was having a deficit of 5,2% of GDP
Britain was having a deficit of 7,8% of GDP
(and Britain was using lots of different financial tricks that France could not use due to Euro-membership)
Seems to me, that it would be in the interest of France to veto British wishes for Euro-membership in order to avoid future need for bailing out the weak British economy.

There are other economies there have outcompeted the british one. Spain for instance but I am not going to quote their debt numbers since they in 2012 needed to bailout a number of banks and regions. Nevertheless, my intuition tells me, that Spains public finances might actually be in better shape than the british one. Try asking the people in Spain, if they feel in the mood for higher taxes in order to finance a bailout of Britain (if Britain was having Euro-membership)

"Britain was using lots of different financial tricks that France could not use due to Euro-membership".

Like, er, a stable lender of last resort.

"it would be in the interest of France to veto British wishes for Euro-membership"

Wouldn't be for the first time.

"my intuition tells me, that Spains public finances might actually be in better shape than the british one."

Well, they have a weird way of showing it.

And, lastly, I understand the figures and appreciate that there are difficulties with the economy of Britain. However, what you need to appreciate is that the UK's reticence to jump in with "ever closer union" isn't about Europhobia or purely financial. It is about laws, democratic accountability, and history too.

The way that ECB has intervened has effectively secured the existence of a lender of last resorts. It is one of the reasons we are seeing a reverse of capitol flow were capitol is streaming from the north european safe haven countries and back to European countries there experienced capitol flight with the consequence that interest rates are increasing in safe haven countries and falling in the crisis countries

There are some major differences
The british central bank is for instance returning received interest rates to the treasury for those government bonds it owns.
The eurozone is not using the same trick with the exception of Greece there receives back the interest rate as part of the 2020 and 2022 debt target agreements

Had Britain been part of the Euro, we would be in a worse position than Greece and have the EU officials determining our fiscal policies. Its that simple, our political leaders have screwed up on a scale that is pretty much unbelievable.

That said, because we are outside the euro, we can do something about it. The big mistake the Socialist government made as to assume the good years would continue for ever and thus spent all the money and then some. Leaving us with nothing to apply a keynse-ian stimulus. Not that would have helped much, but would have been better than where we really are. NOt only that, when the good times were rolling, but we were running a large trade deficit with Europe especially , the government should have done pretty much what Germany did and slow growth and got our national costs and productivity under control. Instead they went for short term growth using short term means and arrogantly declared boom and bust over (while in a boom and just before the bust).

So, yes our government screwed up - but in what way would be being more tightly integrated into Europe have helped us? Interest rates were set for the largest economies, basically Germany; currency strength suited Germany; terms of trade suited Germany. We would have been in a dire mess, instead of a very bad one.

We need to implement healthy fiscal policies, but so does much of Europe, we at least are not bound to suffer in an environment where the terms of trade favours Germany.

So, unless Europe plans to implement economic war against us, I believe we are better out, but it would help in either case if we had a competent government, which we clearly lack no matter who we elect.

Had Britain been part of the Euro, we would be in a worse position than Greece and have the EU officials determining our fiscal policies. Its that simple, our political leaders have screwed up on a scale that is pretty much unbelievable.

That said, because we are outside the euro, we can do something about it. The big mistake the Socialist government made as to assume the good years would continue for ever and thus spent all the money and then some. Leaving us with nothing to apply a keynse-ian stimulus. Not that would have helped much, but would have been better than where we really are. NOt only that, when the good times were rolling, but we were running a large trade deficit with Europe especially , the government should have done pretty much what Germany did and slow growth and got our national costs and productivity under control. Instead they went for short term growth using short term means and arrogantly declared boom and bust over (while in a boom and just before the bust).

So, yes our government screwed up - but in what way would be being more tightly integrated into Europe have helped us? Interest rates were set for the largest economies, basically Germany; currency strength suited Germany; terms of trade suited Germany. We would have been in a dire mess, instead of a very bad one.

We need to implement healthy fiscal policies, but so does much of Europe, we at least are not bound to suffer in an environment where the terms of trade favours Germany.

So, unless Europe plans to implement economic war against us, I believe we are better out, but it would help in either case if we had a competent government, which we clearly lack no matter who we elect.

Well, you should only enter the euro (when your national debt is lower) if you intend to follow the following strategy

1) Always keep healthy fiscal policies. It can be done. We have done so in Denmark for decades but it usually involves having politicians taking lots of unpopular decisions in good times when the voters do not see the need for it
2) Constantly defend your relative competiveness towards the big countries there are most competitive in the union
3) Have regulation in place to safeguard against to big buildup of debt in the public sector and the private sector. (Private debt can quickly become public if there is a need for bank bailouts)

If a country fail to implement 1 +2 +3 do it after some time (something like a decade) risk ending in a position like Greece

I believe it would be best for Britains business opportunities to stay in EU but keep out of the Euro (I do not think Britain has the political willpower to follow the strategy in point 1,2 and 3)

The cost of running EU is actually quite low

I know that Denmarks net contribution to EU is something like 0,34% of our Gross National Income and that we per inhabitant pays approximately twice as much in net contribution as Britain due to not having a rebate.

The entire EU budget is something like 1% of EU's GDP
Sounds inexpensive considering the economic advantages of having good access to a market with approximately 500 million inhabitants with good purchasing power.

and that people in Scotland likes to define themselves as different from tories

Do it sound to me, that Cameron with his speech is increasing the chance that Scotland will vote in favour of independence from UK in the upcoming scottish independence referendum expected prior to Camerons EU referendum

Seems to me, that the more the tories argue for UK leaving the EU the greater chance that Scotland declares independence.

As far as i remember Britains history was it the ability for Britain to offer scottish merchants access to a large trading area (the British empire) there was crucial for succesfully integrating and keeping Scotland inside the union do to the amount of people in scotland having a benefit from the Union.

The british empire is no more but the EU is a valid substitution as a large free trading area that the scottish people have access to via their union with England
Makes you wonder, what happens to Scotlands independence wishes if it seems like UK leaves EU, that is, England will be unable to veto Scotlands wish for EU membership and England is no longer offering Scotland access to a large trading area.

Well, it runs a great deal deeper than that. For example, we share an island and Mary Queen of Scots' son became King James I of England following the death of Elizabeth I. So a brief snapshot of a particular moment in history paints a distorted picture.

The crux of the matter is that the Scots are a fiercely proud nation, but when push-comes-to-shove will be extremely pragmatic and maintain their place in the UK.

No you are wrong. When Scotland joined the UK, there was no empire, just a few small colonies. Scotland had access to the english market itself and our few colonies.

Scotland may choose to go with Europe or may choose to stay, no one knows. England would not veto Scotland joining the EU even if it could, that is a fatuous comment. anyway the scottish referendum is to happen before the EU one, but personally I have always believed Scotland should go independent. But the Scots wont be happy in the EU - they will get the oil then have to share with Europe through large scale fees to the EU, comparable to Germany or even Denmark in net transfers, because Scotland has small agriculture, but will have trade and fiscal surpluses because of oil.

The British parliaments history section claims the following regarding the union with Scotland. Please notice the British parliament directly claims it was Scottish wishes for access to a large trading area there was a decisive factor. Do you agree or disagree with the British parliaments opinion regarding the history of the union between England and Scotland?

The idea of a union between England and Scotland was aired in February and March 1689 during the deliberations of the Convention Parliament in Edinburgh. William III wrote to the Convention of his pleasure that so many of the Scots nobility and gentry favoured the proposal, especially since both nations shared the same landmass, language and attachment to the Protestant religion.

It would also, of course, help to secure the Revolution against ex-King James and the Jacobites.
Negotiations

As a result of this encouragement, the Convention appointed commissioners to negotiate with the English but met with a wall of disinterest.

A proposal for union was made in the Lords in 1695, but that, too, received short shrift.

In Scotland, however, the case for union found much favour among the political elite during the 1690s, mainly because of the poor state of the economy.

In 1699, there were discussions between politicians in London and Edinburgh and the English side acknowledged that a union might be in both nations' interest. The Scots hoped for a union of trade with vital access to English colonial markets.

-----------------------

Anyway
You can already see Scottish independece supporters there claims that Scotlands national interests are under attack due to Cameron's EU strategy and that the people in England does not care for the continued existence of the Union between England and Scotland

The only reason why Cameron has proposed a referendum on the EU is to try to divert the people and the medias from his disastrous economic records : Britain has entered his third recession in five years and the situation is getting worse every month. Good job Cameron.

Furthermore Cameron's proposal to try to improve the EU's institutions is a farce : the Eurozone countries have more urgent matters to deal with at the moment other than to please Cameron's own political agenda. The 17 Eurozone countries will only focus during the next years on their own federalist agenda.

"The only reason why Cameron has proposed a referendum on the EU is to try to divert the people and the medias from his disastrous economic records".

Cynical, but not without some foundation I grant you.

I'm no Cameron cheerleader, but the problems of public debt were not made by the present coalition, but by the previous government. In fact, one minister from the Blair-Brown years even let slip that they had made the colossal mistake of running a deficit even when the economy was at full capacity.

I think the referendum idea is to try and push back the eurosceptics while not alienating the europhiles.

he does not want the rabid maniacs of the Tory party to pull it apart as happened under Major.

Cameron is a Europhile and will campaign to stay in. Any renegotiation will achieve very little, perhaps a fig leaf or two to wave his 'peace in our time' note, but that will be all.

I suspect once the campaign is under way the British will be pulled back to stay in - provided there is no sense of being bullied or threatened. The Swedish and German leaders played it nicely by emphasising how much we are valued. Play that line and once the referendum campaign is under way people will switch. At the moment people only know Europe through distorted newspaper reports, mostly hostile.

The British generally have no problem with Europe and Europeans, they like holidaying and working there.

But our systems of law, government and economics are different and often we perceive Europe as imposing too much. There should be less done at the European level and more at the national level. So we will see.

As far as i know has uncertainty about future conditions for trade, investment and migrating labour been one of the most growth damaging situations there can be created and Cameron has just succeeded creating several years of uncertainty about Britains future regulations for trade, investment and migrating labour

''Once the EU has forded the creek and settled into more democratic and robust institutions, it can afford to take on less committed members.''
Amazing statement Dominique!
Aside from your rather snide and unfounded querying of Turkey's democratic traditions (governments regularly change in Turkey, and that through democratic elections recognised by the respectable world as free and fair - and now more regular than those in France and most other EUI members (!!!) - or do you want to quibble on that pointlette?) I'd love to hear from you on how France and/or the EU are proposing (seriously, that is) to make the EU ''more democratic''.
How is it encouraging electorates to participate in electing EPs with greater powers of leadership and control?
Or is the EU considering other less dirigiste structures as a part of wholescale reform, (but just won't - or can't let on to the voting punters as to what they could be?)
Surely, can it seriously be considering downgrading the role of French Presidents to make policy on the hoof, without any consultation of EU partners? (e.g. De Nagy-Bocsa's unilateral anti-Turkey policy for one?)
Or of German Chancellors - though they seem to be far less gung-ho than French Presidents who don't give a damn whether the EU supports their policy or not. (Libya?)
If it is, now that WOULD be more 'democratic'.
My view is that the EU needs an EU electorate of one person, one vote, with ALL votes equal in weight - regardless of nationality, - electing an EP that is the centre of policy design and decision-making.
Your French Turkey paranoias disappear at a stoke with such a design, unless you assume that ALL 'Turks', like all other (potential) voters in such a system will ALWAYS vote on purely NATIONAL lines,- UNANIMOUSLY of course.
That is 75 million Turks will always dominate an EP representing all the rest, as a tail wagging a far huger, democratically-elected dog.
I don't go for that absurd assumption.
I'd prefer an EU run by the best people, duly elected, and I don't give a damn as to where they come from. I do give a damn as to whether some individuals have more power than others.
The Gaullist 5th Republic has always been fundamentally nationalist and right-wing, putting France first and the EU a poorer runner-up, in the belief that since France designed the EU structure, France owns it through droit d'auteur. Hnece French vetoes (all unilateral, as with Turkey) on UK applications for membership in the 1950s and 1960s).
Such a shame for the politics of such a significant country and culture.
By the way on pointlettes re crass assumptions unquestioned, - thanks to French presidents, we have South America and Africa in our 'European' Union, the culture of Guyane and Comorian Mahoré being of course, far more rootedly 'European' than anything in the heart of the Ancient, Mediaeval or modern worlds that could be found in Anatolia, n'est-ce pas?
(What screaming would there be in Paris if the UK supplied Brazil or Suriname with weapons for liberating Guyane from Franco-EU occupation?)
The deeper suspicion that France needs to allay in all this, is that it doesn't really want genuine and full partnership in policy-design and decision-making for ALL, on an equal and respectful, democratic basis.
Seriously large, potential competitors (such as the UK and Turkey, but few other places, save Germany) are not wanted in the Gaullist world-view.
(Italy, hardly the most francophilic member of the EU, is dismissed as second rate of course- just ask Italians about that!)

Turkey's entry is logical if you see the EU as a mere free trade area. It would even contribute to block further political evolution, a positive outcome for many on this forum, including, it seems, yourself.

However, the opinion of those who see the EU as more than a free trade area holds as much legitimacy, and has been at the root of the EEC then EU construction. I am all for keeping shopkeepers happy and in money, but they're not the only Europeans. Turkey has been offered a partnership entailing all advantages of belonging to the single market, which the UK would IMHO love to have. It has rejected it out of wounded pride rather than rational consideration. Pity.

Your assumption that I see Italy, where I lived several years and like and respect a lot, as a second-rate country in the EU is downright insulting. It was not France who coined the delicious acronym "PIGS".

Allow me to let yout pointlettes as unanswered as they were designed to be.

Dominique, professionally, I proselytise with full commitment for French and Italian cultures and have done all my professional life, if not for governments of the Vth Republic or Italian ones.
You fail to answer points of course, quite simply because you cannot.
They pose quesitons about the boxed mind set of French nationalism as from De Gaulle onwards, and to answer requires thinking outside that box, and indeed criticising French government policy for its gung-ho, unilateral, seldom 'European', arrogant dis-solidarity of France first as nationalists perceive national interest.
These attutides, actively fostered since De Gaulle, are in my view both a key explanation of Turkey's experience and subsequent behaviour (your view that the Turks act out of pique is simple-mindedly trivial stereotype of the most thoughtlessly non-analytical or knowledgeable type).
They underlie quite deeply the British attitudes towards the EU, where France does its utmost to keep from sharing power as it should.
Italians are very well aware of the faults of their systems and are openly critical of them. To say so is offensive only to those of reactionary nationalist/fascistic bent. But basically, and for deep reasons, Italian governments are seldom nationalistic in their approach and msot certainly not so when it comes to Europeanness and the EU.
France prefers to ignore policies from allies it doesn't like for whatever knee-jerkish reason.
The key to this debate must be: if the EU wants the UK to stay, HOW is it going to bolster UK voters into voting OUI to ever deeper union?
That is the order of such a day.
Though I'd prefer to read your points on how the EU is becoming - as you claim - MORE democratic, and exactly how it is going to continue to do so!
I see entrenched democratic deficit, for nationalistic reasons, with absolutely NO discussion on how that deficit can be properly reduced.
Coud EU voters be possibly asked for their opinion in such matters?

The EU from the time of its formation ,looked towards further and further European intergration.That is and always was, the purpose of it.
Rules about working hours( doctors were mentioned by UK)are only for the minumum of working hours.UK can have them working less if they so desire.Rules about work are a basic human right and if UK wants to change it ,it`s got more chances inside the EU than outside.The same applies to rules about enviromental ,agricultural ,fishing issues etc.
The whole notion doesn`t make sence except for pleasing certain political individuals that have their own agenda.
As a UK tv programme says "in it to win it"

And this is the problem, rules about working ours are not a basic human right. It should be for me to decide how long I work, not some bloody out of touch government. Things like that are not necessary to be done at a European level.

We regard free speech as a basic right, but in Germany for example, someone who is perceived as a holocaust denier will be put in prison, In Britain no matter how moronic the view of the deniers, it is their right to hold that opinion.

As to you in it to win it comment - our problem is we are in it, and we are losing it, because what we want is different to what you want. That is why we should be out and you should not interfere in our sovereign rights.

Just why isn't the knee-jerk reaction in European chancelleries and presidential suites: ''WE must convince the voters to vote JA / OUI / SI (etc) to European Union''?
Referenda OK for some member states of the EU (to be done and redone until the vote is 'right' (not left?), but not for others?
The knee-jerk reactions from places like Paris are both revealing and worrying for democracy.

1) How to improve competitiveness and create growth and jobs
2) How to improve long term fiscal health

Europe does not want to spend time negotiating with Britain because

a) It would be a distraction from point 1 and 2
b) Britain does not bring enough value to Europe to give Britain the concessions that british voters most likely would consider their minimum requirement for staying in the EU
c) A long time period of uncertainty about Britains EU membership could have negative consequences for Britains ability to attract investments and skilled labour and it increase the risk of Britain fragmenting with Scotland declaring independence and applying for EU membership and the people of northern ireland to demand reunification with Ireland.
Europe is not interested in seeing a broken and poor island on it's western shores. Basically, it is easier to be a winning economy if you are located in a rich economic area. Britain is following a path there risk downgrading Britains economic performance and fragment it's territorial integrity

Firstly, stop spamming this comment section.
Secondly if you had actually read Cameron's speech, 'How to improve competitiveness and create growth and jobs' and 'How to improve long term fiscal health' are at the core of everything he has said.
-
And FYI
'people of northern ireland to demand reunification with Ireland'
is wildly ignorant of history, not to mention offensive. Stop copying and pasting it.
-
'Basically, it is easier to be a winning economy if you are located in a rich economic area. '
Really? Pay any attention to the southern EU, ever? Spain's youth unemployment is now 55%. Greece's suicide rate is continent wide disaster.
The idea that the EU membership makes it 'easier to be a winning economy' is not only hilariously ignorant of economic current affairs, but is actually, again, extremely offensive.

It is kind of logical that it is less critical for irish feeling people in northern ireland to be reunited with ireland if both Ireland and Britain are EU members due to the rights of EU citizens for free movement of labour, free movement of students, free movement of retired people and so forth.

It seems logical to assume, that Britain risk increased tension in northern Ireland if we see the following scenario

1) Britain outside the EU and Ireland inside the EU
2) Ireland seeing expanding labour market opportunities due to the amount of international export oriented companies investing in an english speaking EU memberstate enjoying full access to the common market and able to recruit specialists from all EU memberstates.

Regarding Reforms.
The rest of Europe wants to spend time discussing necessary reforms to the economy in order to promote growth, fiscal health, expansion of labour force and it's qualifications and a reduction in red tape for business
The rest of Europe does not want to waste time discussing Britains relationship with Europe. Most Europeans do expect, that Britain will vote no to continued EU membership. Many European citizens do read the internet version of british newspapers and magazines. That is, no reason to give any concessions to Britain.

Well, Britains current account deficit, national budget deficit, inflation adjusted GDP growth and net public debt is a lot worse than the eurozone.
Seems to me, that it would make more sense, if Britain use time on political debates like:

a) How to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt as a percentage of GDP?
b) How to obtain a current account surplus?
c) How to obtain growth?

I understand that Britain would like to renegotiate it's EU membership
It is sound negotiation strategy to maximize bargaining position before initiating negotiations, that is
a) You need to make your economy more healthy (fiscal and current account balance) with better growth prospects compared to the Eurozone. You are currently performing worse than the eurozone on all 3 parameters
b) You need to have something to offer there is wanted by the other side. This could be minerals (your oil is running out) or military capabilities you are prepared to use for the common good (your military is facing huge spending cuts and you always choose the interest of USA over the interests of Europe)
c) Credible alternatives to the EU.
(Recreating the commonwealth or joining NAFTA or applying for US or Canadian statehood does not sound credible)
Basically:
The stronger negotiation position the better negotiation results can you hope for.

You have a clear bias.
Deficits are not transitional and easily afforded in the current market. It has also been cut by a third in the past year.
'Current Account surplus' - an economics lesson for you. The current account does not even attempt to track all exports, as service exports are not easily trackable.
And obtaining growth - lessons from the Eurozone on that will be met with derisive laughter. Even Germany posted negative growth in the last quarter - what do you think Italy, Spain and France will do?
-
'The rest of Europe does not want to waste time discussing Britains relationship with Europe'
Stop being so pompous as to believe that you can speak on behalf of all of Europe.
Merkel is already listening - try reading some media on the subject instead of spamming the same childish comments on here, 8 hours a day.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66ce6878-6618-11e2-bb67-00144feab49a.html#axzz...

The difference is, that Britain is having high inflation compared to the eurozone and that creates a situation were Real GDP growth since the outbreak of the finance crisis in 2008 has been significantly better in the eurozone compared to Britain

Stop the constant ad-hominems please James, just because you do not agree with Gustav doesn´t mean you have to insult him every single comment you post yourself. It is much more childish than anything else and not a great show of rhetorical, let alone factual strength.

I am pretty sure that the UK is not alone in today's enlarged EU in thinking that the European Community is a more desirable option than the "United States of Europe" as envisioned by France and Germany. Therefore, if the UK propses to form such "European Community" as a second tier to the US of E, more than a few EU members would back the UK.
This is far better option than the Brixit.

No
In Denmark did we follow Britain into the EU
Opinion polls says that a majority want to stay in EU even if Britain leaves and they say they do not want to see a danish referendum upon it

Basically, we believe, it is necessary to stay near the core of Europe in order to promote our national interests

A number of north european euro countries are saying
They want more union in order to reduce the risk for future bailout packages for banks and states and

People in a number of south european euro countries are saying they to a greater extent want their democratic voice heard in EU

Those 2 objectives can be combined
Transfer more power to EU but at the same time making it direct elections in the memberstates and not appointments by the memberstates governements or parliaments there elect the commission
Basically, a commission chairman to be elected by the people of Europe. He or She then appoints the commission
The commission serves the role of having the initiative right for proposing new directives. That is, it is a way to secure increased democratic control with the EU decision making process and that is kind of necessary if more powers have to be transferred to EU in order to safeguard Europe against future financial crisis situations like the one there happened in 2008.

Denmark is expecting 2013 growth and the key fiscal parameters are good

1) Low net public debt (one of the lowest in world)
2) High current account surplus (better than the german one when measured as % of GDP)
3) Low deficit on the national budget
4) Improving competitiveness due to structural reforms
5) Improving long term fiscal health projections due to structural reforms
6) Expanding the size of the labour force and implementing reforms to improve it's competences

Job losses has been high since the outbreak of the crisis in 2008. Approximately 3,6 times EU average (when measured as %-drop in amount of working age population having a job). It is almost loss of jobs in the same speed as Spain, Greece and Portugal

On the other hand
During the last few years has Denmark implemented one of the most brutal structural reforms programs in history
A lot more reforms are expected this year.
It is a flexible labour market making it easy to sack. Lots of restructuring of both the private and public sector.

Hey, Communist, cease with your nonsense. You try to separate Britain vs the rest of Europe. Well, let me tell you that I am from the "rest of Europe" and I completely support the British in this situation, as do literally over a hundred million 'EU' citizens.

You think you are on the right side? Hah! You don't even know what those old men in Brussels really want, think or say about you...

I am a danish center voter supporting free trade reforms, reforms to improve fiscal health, reforms to improve company competitiveness, reforms to expand labour force and it's qualifications. Reforms enabling reductions in taxes on labour income and companies and enabling increases in investment in infrastructure, science and education and financing it by cutting bureaucracy and social transfers.

Well, you know, a center voter from one of those countries there are among Britains primary alliance partners within EU when it comes to the fight for free market reforms, cuts in bureaucracy requirements and changes in EU spending

It is also danish forces there have fought together with british forces on the same battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan,...

It is not a coincidence that Denmark entered the EU at the same time as Britain

Difference is
Denmark is NOT going to follow Britain out of EU
A majority of the danish population says that Denmark should stay in EU even if Britain leaves it.

What a heap of nonsense. First of all - Denmark is performing rather well; not only in economic growth, but also when it comes to sound fiscal programs (if I remember correctly, there was a surplus). That's not to say Denmark is perfect; they're going to run into trouble at some point with their lagging productivity growth (heavily third sector) and the shortage of available labor (they've almost got full employment) - in part they could solve that by drastically heightening the pensioning age and, more over the long run, by investing in their education system.

The problem is that the Southern countries are hopelessly inefficient. Although primarily the responsibility for that lies with the Southern states themselves - I do think that the EU is in part to blame for it. When Spain showed the growth figures a couple of years ago, Europe could've warned them about the bubble. The same with Greece - perhaps now finally are the instruments developed for correcting these structural problems of the Southern countries (and in return, of course, the North should put available some funds for them, based on contractual agreements on performance of the Southern states); perhaps freeing the CAP budget would be a good start; Hollande gets his investment and we're finally rid of that awful system.

a) Halving time period for unemployment benefits and doubling time it take to regain rights for unemployment benefits
b) Phasing out early retirement schemes
c) Making it more difficult to obtain disability retirement
d) Make automatic increases in retirement age when living age increase. For my generation will it be approximately 71 year
e) Reducing future inflation adjustment of social transfers
f) Reprioritizing public funds. More spend on investment in infrastructure, science and education. Less spend on social trasfers (point a to e) and less spend on public employee salaries (lots of public employees has been sacked)
g) Additional reforms are expected this spring. They would make Margaret thatcher look like a socialist in comparison. Difference is, we are having a center-left government.

Approximately 3,6 times EU average (when measured as %-drop in amount of working age population having a job)

Well, it was reported some days ago, that the amount of persons employed in Denmark had fallen by 5,9%-point in amount of working age population having a job since the outbreak of the crisis

The EU average is 1,6%
It is only very crisis affected south european countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain there has seen worse drops
You do not see the effect in the public danish unemployment numbers for a number of reasons

1) they do not include persons without a job there is moved to training programs
2) they do not include persons there is selfemployed but unable to get enough hours
3) they do not include persons not entitled to social security
4) they do not include those there have decided to study at university instead of working (increase in the amount of students)

Denmark do have one of the worlds most flexible labour markets.
It did mean, that when the crisis broke out in 2008 did danish companies quickly cut costs by performing mass sackings
Simultaneously has lots of reforms been implemented
Lots of restrictions has for instance been lifted on shop opening hours with the result the entire retail sector is restructuring
Another problem was that unit price competiveness against Germany had deteoriated with something like 25% in the decade prior to the crisis. Lots of reforms has since then been implemented to regain competiveness and more reforms are expected since the politicians are facing fierce demands from voters there demand the necessary reforms to regain the lost competitiveness
Something like 57% of voters do for instance say they want to see tax cuts on companies even if it is necessary to reduce the public sector to finance those tax cuts
The government has for instance announced it's intentions to force huge groups of public sector workers to accept new salary deals were they have to generate more value for the same salary
For the next decade will annual Salary increases in Denmark probably be kept below German salary increases

Basically, restructuring of the economy has been fierce and brutal but it also means that Denmark and Danish companies are probably several years ahead of most other European countries when looking at the necessary reforms there has to be implemented before new growth is possible

"Transfer more power to EU but at the same time making it direct elections in the memberstates and not appointments by the memberstates governements or parliaments there elect the commission"
That is exactly what "United States of Europe" means. What I am saying is that there exists a significant minority within today's EU who are against such federalist measures. You need to provide not just personal example but EU wide indication of overwhelming support for federalism (ie. national governments relegated to local affairs as is the case in USA states) .

Yes it would be United States of Europe but it could become necessary if it turns out to be necessary to transfer more power to EU to make the Euro work
Basically, it is a common complaint from EU sceptics that EU is not sufficient democratic since the commission is not
democratic elected but instead appointed by the democratic elected national member state parliaments
Seems logical, that the transfer of more power is only possible if the chairman of the commission (the equivalent of the US president) becomes elected by the European people in elections

There is another reason it could become necessary to make the chairman of the commission elected in elections

The German constitution states that the German parliament can never abolish democracy.

A lot of observes expect that means, that Germany is near the limit of power-transfer there will be accepted by their constitutional court unless reforms are implemented to make the EU a democratic federation.

Basically, a democratic federation could become the only available option if it turns out to be necessary to transfer additional power to EU in order to stabilize the Euro.

It also means, that it could place Britain in a position were the rest of Europe will encourage Britain to leave the EU if Britain tries to prevent EU from becoming a democratic federation if it turns out that a democratic federation is the only option for stabilizing the Euro.